Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Surendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 399 of 2022
Decided On : 16-02-2022
Bail Application - Criminal Law - The court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, who was facing charges under Sections 498-a, 406, 323 & 316 of IPC, considering material contradictions in the complainant's statements and the medical report, and the prolonged trial process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being in custody for offenses under Sections 498-a, 406, 323 & 316 of IPC. The complainant's statement revealed contradictions, and the petitioner had been incarcerated since 02.06.2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the arguments, found that the bail application deserved to be accepted and allowed the petitioner's release on bail.
Issues: The issues involved contradictions in the complainant's statements, the duration of injuries, and the prolonged trial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the material contradictions in the complainant's statements, the duration of injuries, and the anticipated lengthy trial process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the fourth bail application and ordered the release of the accused-petitioner on bail upon fulfilling specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.01/2019, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 498-a, 406, 323 & 316 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the rejection of the third bail application of the petitioner on 19.08.2021, statement of complainant-Mst. 'R' has been recorded before the trial court as P.W.1. He submits that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it has come on record that in the FIR, she has not mentioned about the injuries being inflicted by the petitioner on the stomach resulting into her abortion.
4. Learned counsel further submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of P.W.1 in the FIR vis-á-vis the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that even as per the medical report, the injuries caused were within the duration of 0-6 hours of the medical examination whereas, the complainant left the matrimonial home almost 72 hours prior to the medical examination. The charge-sheet in the case has been filed and the petitioner is facing incarceration since 02.06.2020. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
7. Consequently, the present fourth bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Surendra S/o Sh. Nihanchand arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.01/2019, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The court considered material contradictions in the complainant's statements, the duration of injuries, and the prolonged trial process in granting bail to the petitioner.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Bail can be granted when the evidence does not directly link the accused to the commission of the fatal act, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence.
The court established that doubts in the prosecution's case, particularly from the victim's testimony, can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The decision to grant bail was based on the similarity of the petitioner's case to that of the co-accused who had already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of the Court.
A defendant may be granted bail if the allegations do not directly implicate them in the commission of a serious crime, particularly when they are merely an accomplice to the principal accused.
The court's decision was based on the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the intention of the accused-petitioners in causing the injuries.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the present situation of the country due to the pandemic of corona virus (COVID-19).
The court may grant bail based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering the progress of the trial and the involvement of other accused persons.
The court's decision to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was influenced by the consideration of the statements recorded in the charge-sheet and the conclusion of the Police after the investigatio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
